Last week saw a landmark intervention by Michael Moore MP, until recently the Secretary of State for Scotland and one of the leaders of the No Campaign. He stated that Scotland’s participation in the European Union would be supported by all member states.

Moore said that he saw “no reason to believe that any country around Europe would have an in-principal objection to any new Member State coming forward”. This interview, given by Michael Moore to the Catalan News Agency, took place just weeks after he was sacked by David Cameron and Nick Clegg. The timing of these comments suggest he has had a conflicting view to his UK colleagues for some time on how to argue the case for a No vote. He was clearly unwilling to push the No Campaign’s scare stories to the point where his personal credibility would be irrevocably damaged. His successor Alistair Carmichael MP will face the same dilemma.

Up until this point, No Campaign figures have spent most of their time issuing scare stories, including the claim that Scotland would face numerous undefined barriers to membership of the EU. Michael Moore’s statement reinforces the growing body of evidence that Scotland’s position within the EU will be improved following independence. It also provides further confidence in Scotland’s overal economic and international position following a Yes vote.

There’s a further irony in these comments, given that Michael Moore and the UK Government remain positioned to easily provide legal certainty on the status of an independent Scotland within the EU. To receive formal legal advice on such matters from Brussels individual Member States must apply to the EU Commission. Scotland cannot ask as it is not yet an individual member state.

2) German Government advisor Professor Roland Vaubel said that there is “no basis” in European treaties for Scotland’s EU status to change. If Scotland became independent “both would remain members of the European Union”. The German position is highly influential in Brussels.

3) Eamonn Gallagher, former Director General of the European Commission and EC Ambassador to the UN in New York, has said: “Scotland and the rest of the UK would be equally entitled to continue their existing full membership of the EU” (Sunday Herald, 18th February, 2007).

4) Emile Noel, the longest serving Secretary-General of the European Commission said: ”Scottish Independence would create two new member states out of one. They would have equal status with each other and the other states. The remainder of the United Kingdom would not be in a more powerful position than Scotland.”

5) Alexander MacKenzie Stuart, who chaired the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, said “Independence would leave Scotland and something called ‘the rest’ in the same legal boat. If Scotland had to reapply, so would the rest.” (Scotland on Sunday, 1992).

6) Furthermore, there is no procedure to change the status of a country which is already within the EU. Not a single EU Treaty sets-out a process for secession.

Political support

1) Statements from Danish officials have also confirmed his view. Both senior politicians and academics state that Scotland would be a welcome member of the EU and would fully qualify under the Copenhagen Treaty criteria. Rusmus Petersen, Foreign Affairs Spokesperson for the Danish Liberals, said that “Scottish membership of the EU would be a mere formality” through a transition that can occur “overnight”. Danish professors commented that Scotland’s continued involvement across NATO, the EU and even as part of the Nordic and Arctic Council would be welcomed by other nations.

Beyond this body of legal opinion, political influences will dominate Scotland’s position within the EU after a Yes vote.

2) There are currently tens of thousands of EU nationals living in Scotland. A smooth transition is therefore necessary to maintain freedom of movement and trade between the people’s of Europe. All 5.2 million Scots are also EU citizens.

3) The business and trading links between Scotland and the EU are mutually beneficial and there is no political imperative for the EU to cause distress to a newly independent Scotland or the economies of other EU nations.

4) The political direction of the EU has been in favour of expansion. The EU has grown from 6 members states in the 1950s (as the ‘European Community’) to 28 states as of 2013. There is a great deal of political support to expand the EU further to include Turkey and other Balkan nations. Enlargement not ‘barrier building’ is the political mission of the EU. An oil-rich, renewables-rich, whisky-rich, export-rich and innovative Scotland will be more that welcomed into the multilateral organisation.

Benefits for Scotland of EU membership

As a result of independence, Scotland will have a far stronger voice in international institutions like the EU. Immediately Scotland’s representation in the European Parliament will double. Being an independent member state is crucial to the EU framework. Scotland will be represented at the EU Council of Ministers after 2016. This means Scotland can represent its industries and interests at the top table of European politics. Issues like the negotiation of EU fishing quotas are conducted via Westminster, which has left Scottish fishing communities marginalised and frustrated.

Conclusion

The evidence supports Scotland’s continued membership of the EU following a Yes vote. There are clear legal foundations to this claim.

Michael Moore’s recent admission reveals a wider truth. Scotland’s membership of the European Union is in Scotland’s and Europe’s political interests. Scotland will negotiate improved terms of membership and this will happen from within the European Union during the independence transition period from September 2014 to March 2016. There are practical reasons of mutual interest for why all parties in the UK and EU will desire a smooth transition; and there are political opportunities for Scotland to get a better deal than it does now.

As Westminster’s EU referendum and UKiP’s rising political influence in England risks isolating Scotland from the world’s largest trading market, there is only one way Scotland can guarantee its continued membership of the European Union and a greatly enhanced role in the global community – by voting Yes on September 18th 2014.

Michael is Head of Research with Business for Scotland.
A graduate from the University of Glasgow, he has carried out a series of interviews with academics, politicians and the public in Denmark, Iceland and Ireland. Michael's on twitter @GrayInGlasgow.

I support independence for Scotland, Wales and England (not sure about the Northern Ireland situation) The problem is that if this is only about Scottish independence in Europe then this isn’t independence at all but rather swapping London dependence for even more Brussels dependence. Has no one learned anything from what the EU has done to Ireland, Greece and Cyprus?

Scotland by virtue of its membership of the UK is a member of the EU. There will be no change in that situation we currently have three levels of government Scotland – UK – EU independence moves almost all powers to Scotland, maintains the same level of powers at EU and removes the powers that Westminster uses in ways that act against Scotland best interests. At the same time our number of MEP’s would at least double and we would have more influence in EU due to their need for our oil / waters (fishing) and renewables potential.

I don’t think anyone is seriously suggesting that Scotland wouldn’t be accepted as an EU member after applying to become one are they?

The question is: shouldn’t the people of Scotland be given the democratic choice as to whether we want Scotland to become an EU member first, rather than the SNP making that decision for us, before the next election and despite having no mandate to do so?

I think that when a a party with the traditional slogan “Independence in Europe” is elected, the one thing it doesn’t have is a mandate to support a referendum on leaving the EU. The referendum in 2014 is about what form of Government is best for Scotland and if there is a wish for an EU in / out referendum afterwards then the people of Scotland have to vote for a government with a policy on holding a referendum.

However the argument is not if Scotland would be accepted in the EU but if we stay a member by default (my strongly held belief having studies the law available on the mater) or have to re-apply. The end result is the same – the people of Scotland will decide if there is a will to change the status quo on European membership – but not in this referendum.

There may well be currently tens of thousands of EU Nationals LIVING in Scotland but there are also a similar, if not larger, number of Scots Nationals living and working in other EU states and I include rUK in that.
Non resident Scots do not have a vote in the forthcoming referendum, however the EU status post YES could affect their right to live and work in the EU.
It seems incomprehensible that the EU Commision will not discuss or at least give direction but worse that the UK government as ‘THE’ member state have not requested clarification from the commission.
The above article is very comforting and goes a long way to dispel some of the myths surrounding EU membership but perhaps an EU wide petition would raise awareness and force the hand of the elected parliamentarians in both London and Brussels.

very well put Melanie and I agree that there should be an EU wide petition. Many european can see the predicament with Westminster and will be supportive of a scottish membership ( if that’s what the people of scotland want). I worked as a freight forwarder pre EEC/EU and can assure you : you don’t want to go back there

The one semi feasible argument the NO side make with regard to Scotland’s membership of the EU is that it may add weight to pro-independence movements in other states.
Spain certainly has the most immediate issue in this respect which would suggest that they could be the most objectionable, however their foreign minister, Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo, has already said “If in the UK, both parties agree that this is consistent with their constitutional order, Spain would have nothing to say. This does not affect us.”

re: para 4 – if the Westminster govt won’t ask for a legal opinion, why does Scotland not ask one of the countries who so roundly applauded Alyn Smith? Or, and this is where realpolitik wins over ideals, will they not dare, as they risk incurring the disfavour of the Cameron/Osborne administration?

MEPs from other countries have asked the question on Scotland’s behalf and were told that the EU would only respond to an official request from the member nation that the issue pertained to. If the UK Government don’t ask the question it will not be answered.